CVE-2026-34477

Apache Log4j Core: verifyHostName attribute silently ignored in TLS configuration, allowing hostname verification bypass

MEDIUM
5.9
CVSS Score
Published: April 10, 2026 at 03:36 PM UTC
Updated: October 26, 2026 at 10:10 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLog4j

Using Apache Log4j Core by Apache Software Foundation?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Apache Log4j Core - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.9
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.6%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName system property, but not when configured through the verifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName attribute of the <Ssl> element. Although the verifyHostName configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value. A network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met: * An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use. * TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element. * The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured. This issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate verifyHostname https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default. Users are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

Affected range stops below 2.25.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
HIGH
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-297CWE-295

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card